[Abandoned] - Russian Revolution

[Kabanellas]

Congrats on the map Helix!! I see some very interesting gameplay ‘nuances’ that will definitely make this a fun map to be played.

I have some doubts though:

-where are exactly the starting positions? Only the commanders?

-I’m thinking that (maybe) not all Commanders have equal advantages.... Kolchak for instances: his headquarters will give access to 1 city and will have immediate access to the Check legion. But comparing to Kolchak, Stalin will start winning having his HQ on a city...

-You’ll only get Ukraine’s or Poland’s bonus owning Volhynia right? Not sure if that is obvious enough... guess so.

- Owning Poland, for instances, will render all those regions in Ukraine useless. Shouldn’t they also yield territory bonus like the high or low populated areas?

[iancanton]

where are exactly the starting positions? Only the commanders?

yes, since they have auto-deploy bonuses. most other regions have random deployment.

I’m thinking that (maybe) not all Commanders have equal advantages.... Kolchak for instances: his headquarters will give access to 1 city and will have immediate access to the Check legion. But comparing to Kolchak, Stalin will start winning having his HQ on a city...

that's a good point. we'll have to consider this when fine-tuning the bonuses and neutrals.

Owning Poland, for instances, will render all those regions in Ukraine useless. Shouldn’t they also yield territory bonus like the high or low populated areas?

if u hold only part of poland or ukraine, then u'll receive the default +1 for every 3 regions that is standard for most maps (there isn't really a separate low-population area with a special bonus). perhaps the poland and ukraine bonuses (in the legend, calling them national bonuses instead of regional bonuses will help to illustrate one of the reasons behind the fighting) are best done in the manner of unification germany, so that poland and ukraine both exclude volhynia, but an additional +1 is given if either national bonus is held with volhynia.

ian.

[Kabanellas]

if u hold only part of poland or ukraine, then u'll receive the default +1 for every 3 regions that is standard for most maps

ok, I just got confused because in the legend you can read: '+1 for three territories of high populated areas' with a dark brown square...

What I'm thinking now is (putting the high populated areas aside, I think that's well understood):

if I hold any 3 territories in the brown area I'll get a +1 troop (beside the usual territory number bonus). I won't be getting this extra 1 troop (for 3 terr) in the Baltics, Poland or Ukrayne. Is this right?

[Industrial Helix]

Thanks Kab and Ian.

Hmm... the legend should read "+1 for every territory outside of high population area"

I think you would be reading into this correctly as the map, outside of the high pop zone, just yields the normal bonus.

The tricky thing about Ukraine/Poland is that I want a player to not be able to get both bonuses. The bonuses need to counter each other. If there was a strong Ukraine, then Poland might not have attacked during the war because her territorial ambitions at the expense of the Ukraine couldn't have been fulfilled. So hence, if a player holds Ukraine then the Poland bonus is null and void (see Volyhnia). Likewise, if Poland is strong and has the bonus, then Ukraine becomes a weak power.

Other changes include Stalin starting on Saratov, as opposed to Tsaritsyn.

The Volchak starting near the Czech legion is a good point and one I hadn't considered... especially as Yudenich and Kaledin start near the British areas as well. Perhaps the immediate starting game advantage could be nullified if there were a different bonus system there... Secure both British flags for foreign support for +4, +6 if including Czech legion. I figure make it really high to always be tempting, but a player would have to be in the right situation to take advantage of it and always in the later part of the game rather than the early.

Here's the new version:

Click image to enlarge.

[MarshalNey]

...Perhaps the immediate starting game advantage could be nullified if there were a different bonus system there... Secure both British flags for foreign support for +4, +6 if including Czech legion. I figure make it really high to always be tempting, but a player would have to be in the right situation to take advantage of it and always in the later part of the game rather than the early...

I like this a lot. Perhaps, though, lower the neutral values to 3's then, since they're all so spread out?

Just to make sure that there's room on the map, maybe you should include a title sometime in the near future...

One last thing, and that's the "low-population" areas. I really like the uniqueness and historical aspect of the idea, but in terms of gameplay I'm not convinced that it won't be imbalancing. It's conceivable in 8 player games, for instance, that an unlucky bugger could start with 3, 4 or even 5 fewer troops than most of the other players. On team games, the troop differential could become even more pronounced.

The troop differential is okay if there were a balancing advantage to having the low-population areas, but there isn't. In fact, the opposite is true: the high pop areas have the juicy bonuses, a wealth of cities and rapid movement through rail junctions. You said in your original reasoning that the low-pop areas gave players a chance to build up men to take the high-pop, but I can't see how in an actual game that a player could win such a build-up unless one is assuming that the high-pop players attack each other and ignore the low-pop. This last reason isn't a good one, to my mind, because it assumes that players' strategy/behavior will cover up an imbalance in the map dynamic.

[iancanton]

Secure both British flags for foreign support for +4, +6 if including Czech legion.

I like this a lot. Perhaps, though, lower the neutral values to 3's then, since they're all so spread out?

agreed. perhaps even 2 neutrals for czech legion, since it's worthless unless u have both british flags.

One last thing, and that's the "low-population" areas. I really like the uniqueness and historical aspect of the idea, but in terms of gameplay I'm not convinced that it won't be imbalancing. It's conceivable in 8 player games, for instance, that an unlucky bugger could start with 3, 4 or even 5 fewer troops than most of the other players. On team games, the troop differential could become even more pronounced.

territories in high population areas draft more armies with commander and hq. a differential in initial deployment doesn't apply at the start because each hq is neutral: someone must conquer the neutral hq before the bonus is activated. in the legend, replacing the full stop after hq by a comma will make this clearer.

ian.

[MarshalNey]

territories in high population areas draft more armies with commander and hq. a differential in initial deployment doesn't apply at the start because each hq is neutral: someone must conquer the neutral hq before the bonus is activated. in the legend, replacing the full stop after hq by a comma will make this clearer.

Agreed on the comma (a colon might be even better), but what I'm referring to isn't the bonus collection, but the starting values of troops. Outside of the 'high-pop'/national areas, the troops starting values are 2s instead of 3s. This one sort of snuck by me for awhile, then I looked back some number of pages and found a single reference to it. It's actually a bit of a radical idea, if I'm reading the map correctly.

[theBastard]

how exactly the same/different will be starting positions from last version of map? because I see that some players will have more starting positions in high population area as others.

[Industrial Helix]

Alright, i hear you guys on the comma. Well, addressing your concerns Marshal, every player can attack into the high pop zone within one territory save for Kaledin. Deniken and Trotsky are the only ones which do not attack have a buffer territory between them and the high pop zone. I'm not sure what to do about this, but I'll try to figure something out to balance the drop. To be fair though, every player is randomly deploying throughout the map, its just the commanders that are slightly uneven.

Bastard - Basically, the only starting positions are the 8 commanders. The rest of the map, except the flagged territories, are random deployment, which should be pretty fair.

[MarshalNey]

Alright, i hear you guys on the comma. Well, addressing your concerns Marshal, every player can attack into the high pop zone within one territory save for Kaledin. Deniken and Trotsky are the only ones which do not attack have a buffer territory between them and the high pop zone. I'm not sure what to do about this, but I'll try to figure something out to balance the drop. To be fair though, every player is randomly deploying throughout the map, its just the commanders that are slightly uneven...

Hmmm I'm not convinced. In fact, I'm far less concerned about the commanders than the 2-spot vs. 3-spot regions. Before I launch into a discourse on the topic, however, I want to make absolutely sure that I'm not misunderstanding the map.

A player that dropped Kostroma, for instance, would start with 2 troops on that region, yes? And a player that dropped Yaroslav would start with 3 troops? And all of the regions except commanders- 'high-pop' and 'low-pop'- are random, open deployment (nearly certain this is yes, but just want to be absolutely explicit)?

[theBastard]

Bastard - Basically, the only starting positions are the 8 commanders. The rest of the map, except the flagged territories, are random deployment, which should be pretty fair.

hm, sorry me that I do not understand, but each player will start with commander and the rest of map will be neutral or also divided between players?

if yes (all map divided between players), I´ve only noticed that now it looks that some players have more territories in high population area - so they gain more units from start.

[Industrial Helix]

The territories will be divided randomly by the game engine thingy according to how many players there are. This will be totally even, though some potential exists for imbalances.

If you're looking at the map with the numbers that I've posted, it is not reflective of which player will get territories where, I just colored some numbers and through them up there to illustrate that it will have random deployment over starting positions or all neutrals. So if it seems biased toward blue or pink or whatever, it's just a mock up.

[MarshalNey]

The territories will be divided randomly by the game engine thingy according to how many players there are. This will be totally even, though some potential exists for imbalances.

If you're looking at the map with the numbers that I've posted, it is not reflective of which player will get territories where, I just colored some numbers and through them up there to illustrate that it will have random deployment over starting positions or all neutrals. So if it seems biased toward blue or pink or whatever, it's just a mock up.

I'm not sure if this was meant to answer my question or TB's, so I guess I'll respond...

It's not the player colors that worry me, I understand that's just for show and not meant as some set of coded starting positions- which as I understand it, wouldn't work anyway.

I'm counting, I think, 12 regions for open (random) deployment that start at 2 troops, and 29 regions that start at 3 troops. Is this correct?

[Industrial Helix]

Alright, i hear you guys on the comma. Well, addressing your concerns Marshal, every player can attack into the high pop zone within one territory save for Kaledin. Deniken and Trotsky are the only ones which do not attack have a buffer territory between them and the high pop zone. I'm not sure what to do about this, but I'll try to figure something out to balance the drop. To be fair though, every player is randomly deploying throughout the map, its just the commanders that are slightly uneven...

Hmmm I'm not convinced. In fact, I'm far less concerned about the commanders than the 2-spot vs. 3-spot regions. Before I launch into a discourse on the topic, however, I want to make absolutely sure that I'm not misunderstanding the map.

A player that dropped Kostroma, for instance, would start with 2 troops on that region, yes? And a player that dropped Yaroslav would start with 3 troops? And all of the regions except commanders- 'high-pop' and 'low-pop'- are random, open deployment (nearly certain this is yes, but just want to be absolutely explicit)?

Sorry Marshal, I should have directly addressed your question.... in short. Yes. In long, the commanders have starting positons and the rest of the map, except for the designated neutrals, drops random.

[MarshalNey]

... I really like the uniqueness and historical aspect of the idea, but in terms of gameplay I'm not convinced that it won't be imbalancing. It's conceivable in 8 player games, for instance, that an unlucky bugger could start with 3, 4 or even 5 fewer troops than most of the other players. On team games, the troop differential could become even more pronounced.

The troop differential is okay if there were a balancing advantage to having the low-population areas, but there isn't. In fact, the opposite is true: the high pop areas have the juicy bonuses, a wealth of cities and rapid movement through rail junctions. You said in your original reasoning that the low-pop areas gave players a chance to build up men to take the high-pop, but I can't see how in an actual game that a player could win such a build-up unless one is assuming that the high-pop players attack each other and ignore the low-pop. This last reason isn't a good one, to my mind, because it assumes that players' strategy/behavior will cover up an imbalance in the map dynamic.

... addressing your concerns Marshal, every player can attack into the high pop zone within one territory save for Kaledin. Deniken and Trotsky are the only ones which do not attack have a buffer territory between them and the high pop zone. I'm not sure what to do about this, but I'll try to figure something out to balance the drop. To be fair though, every player is randomly deploying throughout the map, its just the commanders that are slightly uneven.

OK, let me start off by again saying (a) I love this map, (b) I love unique ideas, and (c) making the starting troops uneven is pretty unique.

The potential problem I see is the raw difference in starting troops- not so much attack routes where your thoughts are gathered- but the fact that in some game setups, players are guaranteed to have different starting numbers of troops. And being random deployment, there is a decent chance that the difference between the highest and lowest could be substantial... say, a 3 or 4 troop swing? Players who pick the "Automatic" setting for a map are expecting everyone to start with even numbers of troops on even numbers of regions.

With 12 regions deploying 2 troops (randomly assigned) and 29 regions deploying 3 troops (again random), the worst case is easy to see- a 2 or 3 player game where somehow one player ends up with all twelve 2-troop regions. That would mean one player would start with 12 more troops than his opponent, before the game even really begins. I don't use this example as a serious argument against the 2-troop/3-troop scheme... after all you'd probably win the lottery before that would happen. I'm just pointing it out as an illustration of where my fears lie.

No, I think what is far more likely is for a player to end up with a preponderance of those twelve 2-troop regions, and then end up with fewer troops than everyone else. In fact, it is far less likely for there to be an even distribution of these regions between all players than there is to be an inequity of some kind, great or small.

Which is fine, I think, as long as there is some kind of compensating advantage.

And that is the key to making this idea work, I think. Unfortunately, the 2-troop areas are exactly the opposite of advantage- they give no bonus and are not necessarily close to cities like the 3-troop areas.

I'm not sure what sort of 'compensating advantage' would satisfy your sensibilities about the historical nature of the country and the conflict- I'm still slowly reading up on the subject myself- but I strongly feel at the moment that one should exist.